Budget Calls For Cuts In Almost Every Agency

Weicker Drops Budget Ax

Lawmakers Praise Plan

Governor's Proposal Cuts Most Agencies

February 06, 1992|By LARRY WILLIAMS; Capitol Bureau Chief

Cities and towns would lose state aid. State employees would lose benefits and, in some cases, their jobs. Nursing homes would lose rate increases they were counting on. Some welfare recipients would lose their grants.

The list goes on, as Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. Wednesday proposed an $8.07 billion budget for 1992-93 that would cut spending on hundreds of government programs and services.

The Weicker plan does not contain a tax increase, a promise he said he was determined to keep after the $1.2 billion increase enacted last year.

"The people of Connecticut have already been taxed. It is up to us to make do with what we have," the governor said in an hourlong speech to lawmakers on the opening day of the 1992 legislative session.

Although the bottom line for 1992-93 would be $399 million -- or 5.2 percent -- higher than what the state expects to spend this fiscal year, the entire increase is earmarked for a handful of hard-to-control programs, including Medicaid and state employee fringe benefits.

Almost every state agency would receive less money next year than they will spend this year -- a new twist after many years in which a "budget cut" generally meant a smaller increase than originally planned.

"We all have heard ... `Isn't it about time that government did some sacrificing?' " said William J. Cibes Jr., the governor's budget chief. "Government, and others, have indeed made a sacrifice."

That is what Weicker proposed, anyway. Whether that turns out to be the case will depend on what the legislature does during the three-month session that ends May 6.

Judging by the immediate response, the people and groups most affected by the budget cuts will fight for more money, but will encounter more than the usual resistance from a legislature in which every seat is up for election in November.

One striking feature of early reaction among lawmakers was that

hardly anyone, regardless of his political party or philosophy, was severely critical of Weicker's budget, and most praised it.

That appraisal contrasted sharply with the tide of anger and condemnation that swept through the Capitol from municipal leaders, nursing home owners, state employee union leaders and others.

"We cannot balance this budget with wholesale cuts in the programs that people in the state depend on," said Ethan Rome, legislative director for the Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

Yes, we can, was the reaction of many lawmakers.

"My guess is that most of the changes he has proposed will be done, including the educational spending cuts," said Rep. William R. Dyson, D-New Haven, co-chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which begins its work on the new budget today.

"I know we're going to have to make deep cuts," said House Speaker Richard J. Balducci, D-Newington.

Alluding to the flood of complaints about cuts in municipal aid, he said, "People may yell and scream, but I think ... that's going to happen."

Rep. Lynn H. Taborsak, D-Danbury, a leader of liberal Democrats for whom many of the Weicker proposals seemed especially distasteful, said the plan might succeed in the present climate.

"It's a budget that everybody could vote for today," she said, though she stressed she didn't agree with everything in it.

While most Democrats were guarded in their comments, many Republicans said they were going to support Weicker's budget with enthuasiasm.

"It sounds like something Republicans have been saying for a number of years," said Deputy House Minority Leader M. Jodi Rell, R-Brookfield.

"Our people will generally support these ideas," said House Minority Leader Edward C. Krawiecki, R-Bristol, whose party controls 63 of 151 seats in the House.

Senate President Pro Tem John B. Larson, D-East Hartford, who led the anti-income-tax forces against Weicker last year, indicated he could become the governor's ally this year.

"I think he is to be commended overall for his budget," Larson said. "I think it's representative of the public's will."

But Sen. James H. Maloney, D-Danbury, another income-tax opponent, said Weicker chose cuts that would be painful over cuts that would do nothing but make government more efficient.

"What can't be justified is the continued willingness to cut services for people and not tackle government overhead," Maloney said.

Among the highlights of Weicker's budget:

State aid to cities and towns would experience a net decline of $143 million next year, but the cut is more than $260 million less than the municipalities were scheduled to receive under existing law.

The governor sought to make up for those cuts by relaxing state mandates that drive up local costs. He would, for example, allow town governments to reject labor contracts decided by binding arbitration.